brilliant recovery overnight in the futures market to save the gold plunge. i'm actually excited that i will have another chance to short at a higher top as this recent plunge seemed too premature to me to reset ZSL and DZZ. this rebound could take gold all the way back up to 1300 where i will consider resetting. in the meantime, have fun!:

"In a nutshell, the network works like a distributed
timestamp server, stamping the first transaction to spend a coin. It
takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread but
hard to stifle." -- Satoshi

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

to get a domino effect going to the downside in equities, we need bond defaults of some kind. could energy be it?:Energy companies, the fastest-growing segment of the high-yield bond market in recent years, account for nearly 18% of all outstanding high-yield bonds, up from 9% in 2009, according to J.P. Morgan.

"As London-based consultancy Z/Yen put it earlier this year: “For many people the big story is not Bitcoin, rather it’s the blockchain technology that makes tens of crypto currencies work. Working since 2009, forged in a global furnace of libertarian money, trade, avarice, criminality, espionage and law enforcement, Bitcoin and other crypto currency experiments provide increasing confidence that blockchains are robust in harsh environments and have a bright future.”

While I think that Bitcoin as currently configured has limitations, the technology of the blockchain is one of the most potentially revolutionary developments of the last century. I think we evolve to Bitcoin 2.0 or 3.0, using the same blockchain technology, but with a way to make the new currency a truly stable medium of information that can be easily exchanged for goods and services.Why not create a currency that is backed by a number of commodities, with gold perhaps as the backbone? Why even limit ourselves to commodities? Bitcoin as currently configured could be part of the basket. Anything that can be represented in a digital form and has a reasonably stable long-term value could be considered....

I feel as though I'm watching my own learning curve for bitcoin play out in ultra slow motion as I continue to read articles such as this. John Mauldin has understood blockchain technology as a decentralized ledger for recording transactions (time-stamp server). What he's missed is that half the benefit of using the blockchain as money is lost if these transactions represent claims on real assets (commodity-backed tokens) rather than the transfer the asset itself (bitcoin).

It's quite interesting. He uses the word "information" in an unusual way, like he half-gets the money-as-memory concept:

"a way to make the new currency a truly stable medium of information that can be easily exchanged for goods and services"

yet then proposes to back this "information" with a basket of commodities. Can he not see that "backing" reintroduces centralization and counter-party risk, clouding the pure form of information that bitcoin already is?

Very well stated, thanks.

What continues to be missed by Mauldin and others is that any sound money construct has to be contained wholly within itself with zero external dependencies. The problem with "backing" is the backing mechanism (whatever it is) becomes the weak point which must be trusted. For example, the FED originally was sold as a trusted entity that would back paper dollars with gold, however by 1932 the amount of FED paper liabilities was so far beyond physical actually held, that the FED was forced to default on it's obligations. Backing Bitcoin with gold is no different than backing paper dollars with gold, it doesn't work.

There is a reason we have the phrase "cold hard cash", it came from many generations learning to not trust "backing".

When Mauldin argues to back bitcoin with gold what he is really saying is "I want the world to use my version of sound money (atoms of gold) and not your version of sound money (Bitcoin ledger), but since physical gold is too difficult for your average person to use now I need your technology". However if Mauldin wants to recreate the gold standard, then the hurdle is to get the majority of the public to use physical gold (not paper products based on physical), this is a difficult hurdle.

The brilliance of Satoshi's Bitcoin is he designed the hurdle for your average person to directly use a sound money system to be very very low, lower than any sound money system we've ever had access too. That is proving to be a level of understanding real world economics that is beyond the vast majority of today's economists.

i still think you break that financial system by allowing an offramp to SC's.

That seems to be the core disagreement, and I don't believe that SC's do break that aspect. Jumped back in after switching to silent observer for a while since I thought we were taking a break from SC for now. But if not then I'll try to reply on this tonight. Day job is killing me recently.

While I think that Bitcoin as currently configured has limitations, the technology of the blockchain is one of the most potentially revolutionary developments of the last century. I think we evolve to Bitcoin 2.0 or 3.0, using the same blockchain technology, but with a way to make the new currency a truly stable medium of information that can be easily exchanged for goods and services.Why not create a currency that is backed by a number of commodities, with gold perhaps as the backbone? Why even limit ourselves to commodities? Bitcoin as currently configured could be part of the basket. Anything that can be represented in a digital form and has a reasonably stable long-term value could be considered....

I feel as though I'm watching my own learning curve for bitcoin play out in ultra slow motion as I continue to read articles such as this. John Mauldin has understood blockchain technology as a decentralized ledger for recording transactions (time-stamp server). What he's missed is that half the benefit of using the blockchain as money is lost if these transactions represent claims on real assets (commodity-backed tokens) rather than the transfer the asset itself (bitcoin).

It's quite interesting. He uses the word "information" in an unusual way, like he half-gets the money-as-memory concept:

"a way to make the new currency a truly stable medium of information that can be easily exchanged for goods and services"

yet then proposes to back this "information" with a basket of commodities. Can he not see that "backing" reintroduces centralization and counter-party risk, clouding the pure form of information that bitcoin already is?

I've always been a fan of Cypherdoc's quote "the blockchain may only be applicable to money," not that I think it's necessarily true, but that it reminds us of the huge gap in trust and complexity between using the blockchain as money and using it as some sort of generalized notary system. The thing is, we've largely solved the former problem and that's a vastly more important problem than the latter.

Bitcoin is the Blockchain's native unit--the two cannot be separated.

It's incredibly painful to watch these guys go through this process....in public, with massive audiences, and massive influence.

Someone should just turn this thread into a book and mail it to them all.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: https://onchainfx.comFrontpage of crypto: https://messari.io

I feel as though I'm watching my own learning curve for bitcoin play out in ultra slow motion as I continue to read articles such as this.

It's incredibly painful...

More than painful for me - it's confusing - these are not dumb people making the "blockchain not Bitcoin" argument. It's almost as if they haven't taken the time to thoroughly understand the relationship between the economics and tech of Bitcoin.. which to me is baffling if you believe you're dealing with "one of the most potentially revolutionary developments of the last century." It can't be the case.

I'd venture to guess that most longer term members of this forum were able to grasp economic value-add of Bitcoin at a detailed level in less than few months time..

Thinking in terms of S-curve technology adoption, what are the qualities, dispositions, economic position(?), etc. of Bitcoin early adopters? Certainly classical economic training and technological understanding aren't the only cornerstones.

Side Chains are how people like this will engage in Bitcoin, in his evolution of understanding John Mauldin is conditioned and primed to accept a Bitcoin derivative on a SC. The risk is people like him flowed by the Keynesians will form the economic majority during the next growth stage, and there are more of them than there are of us, so there is a lot of change that can happen if we dont keep a tight rein on the Bitcoin incentives.

I feel as though I'm watching my own learning curve for bitcoin play out in ultra slow motion as I continue to read articles such as this.

It's incredibly painful...

More than painful for me - it's confusing - these are not dumb people making the "blockchain not Bitcoin" argument. It's almost as if they haven't taken the time to thoroughly understand the relationship between the economics and tech of Bitcoin.. which to me is baffling if you believe you're dealing with "one of the most potentially revolutionary developments of the last century." It can't be the case.

I'd venture to guess that most longer term members of this forum were able to grasp economic value-add of Bitcoin at a detailed level in less than few months time..

Thinking in terms of S-curve technology adoption, what are the qualities, dispositions, economic position(?), etc. of Bitcoin early adopters? Certainly classical economic training and technological understanding aren't the only cornerstones.

this is just the regular perks of basic mainstream-slippage.. lazy noobs wanting in at no cost. but they should still be grateful they get to know bitcoin at this stage.

I feel as though I'm watching my own learning curve for bitcoin play out in ultra slow motion as I continue to read articles such as this.

It's incredibly painful...

More than painful for me - it's confusing - these are not dumb people making the "blockchain not Bitcoin" argument. It's almost as if they haven't taken the time to thoroughly understand the relationship between the economics and tech of Bitcoin.. which to me is baffling if you believe you're dealing with "one of the most potentially revolutionary developments of the last century." It can't be the case.

I'd venture to guess that most longer term members of this forum were able to grasp economic value-add of Bitcoin at a detailed level in less than few months time.....

Yeah, I think you're spot on that they haven't taken the time. Whereas most of us obsessed over bitcoin for months (or years) after discovering it, I think most of these guys give it spurts of thought every now and then. Which is, again, just really annoying to watch because their process is so public and influential.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: https://onchainfx.comFrontpage of crypto: https://messari.io

I feel as though I'm watching my own learning curve for bitcoin play out in ultra slow motion as I continue to read articles such as this.

It's incredibly painful...

More than painful for me - it's confusing - these are not dumb people making the "blockchain not Bitcoin" argument. It's almost as if they haven't taken the time to thoroughly understand the relationship between the economics and tech of Bitcoin.. which to me is baffling if you believe you're dealing with "one of the most potentially revolutionary developments of the last century." It can't be the case.

I'd venture to guess that most longer term members of this forum were able to grasp economic value-add of Bitcoin at a detailed level in less than few months time..

Thinking in terms of S-curve technology adoption, what are the qualities, dispositions, economic position(?), etc. of Bitcoin early adopters? Certainly classical economic training and technological understanding aren't the only cornerstones.

I am beginning to wonder if many of the public proponents of sound money that were promoted as alternative experts many years ago, were nothing but sales men for their own gold products. That they are not adherent defenders of the principles of Austrian economics, but instead are simple promoters and it just happened that sound money was nothing more than words that they found their target customers most responded to. Peter Schiff comes to mind.

If this is the case, then of course it makes sense to try and tie Bitcoin to gold which then acts as a conduit for your gold interests. Overall I think Bitcoin is exposing who is truly interested in changing the current corrupt system vs. who has just been promoters for their own interests (whatever they may be).

I feel as though I'm watching my own learning curve for bitcoin play out in ultra slow motion as I continue to read articles such as this.

It's incredibly painful...

More than painful for me - it's confusing - these are not dumb people making the "blockchain not Bitcoin" argument. It's almost as if they haven't taken the time to thoroughly understand the relationship between the economics and tech of Bitcoin.. which to me is baffling if you believe you're dealing with "one of the most potentially revolutionary developments of the last century." It can't be the case.

I'd venture to guess that most longer term members of this forum were able to grasp economic value-add of Bitcoin at a detailed level in less than few months time..

Thinking in terms of S-curve technology adoption, what are the qualities, dispositions, economic position(?), etc. of Bitcoin early adopters? Certainly classical economic training and technological understanding aren't the only cornerstones.

I am beginning to wonder if many of the public proponents of sound money that were promoted as alternative experts many years ago, were nothing but sales men for their own gold products. That they are not adherent defenders of the principles of Austrian economics, but instead are simple promoters and it just happened that sound money was nothing more than words that they found their target customers most responded to. Peter Schiff comes to mind.

If this is the case, then of course it makes sense to try and tie Bitcoin to gold which then acts as a conduit for your gold interests. Overall I think Bitcoin is exposing who is truly interested in changing the current corrupt system vs. who has just been promoters for their own interests (whatever they may be).

The concept of money in Austrian economics, ie. money commodity, is somewhat flawed.

Bitcoin makes every body think harder about what money really is and the more open-minded discovered the much more sophisticated concept of money-memory (which afaik, Bastiat was the first to set forth in 1850, but the problem of a lot of Austrians economist is that they think they already know everything and consequently they are not prone to make evolved their ideas. They are unfazed if their prediction doesn't come into fruition, for example they call hyperinflation and if hyperinflation doesn't come they explain it's because the indexes recording inflation are flawed. They deal with cognitive dissonance like cult members.

Conspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world's largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything."

Not too much of a stretch to say, with this FedLeak news and the GoldmanTapes, that Libor & ISDAfix weren't the worst of it.